Mike's continuing beef with Al

[Dancing Bear]

As long as Mike and Brian are still alive it will be funny to see those sad Mike-haters live in constant fear that they would write together or be on the same stage again.

[Chris Brown]

It's not that Brian has been composing this exciting new music that requires a sophiticated lyricist or something, although I wish he was. I'm not advocating "Let's go surfin" or "Come on darlin', let's cruise tonight" in 2006, but I'd be interested in what Brian and Mike could come up with.

I would too.  As you said, its not as if he's aiming to compose another Pet Sounds or Smile.  He and Mike created some great tunes together, and I'd be curious to find out what a new collaberation with them would produce.  I think maybe Brian is worried that working with Mike would be a step back for him at this point, seeing as how he's been working with guys like Van Dyke and, more recently, Burt Bacharach.  But if they could find a way to tap into whatever well they were drawing from 40 years ago (which it seems Brian is trying to do with his Rock n' Roll project), then I think the results could be pretty special

[Third Coast]

Well put. One area where Mike deserves credit, though, are three wise words he's uttered more than a few times over the last several years, when asked about putting the old issues in the past and moving on together (including Al). The words:  "Never say never."

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

. Check out the end of Stebbins BBC documentary if you think Brian is in such a great envirement now.

I missed that one. Can you elaborate?

[Cam Mott]

yes, Mike was screwed on some of the songs, but is it not possible that in the process of getting his fair share, he overreached? You know, taking the entire foot instead of the inch?

Brian saying that he wants to work with Mike? The one thing that always ticks me off about Mike and SMiLE (and everything else Brian-related) is that he seems to think that he is the only one who is entitled to work with Brian.  I have to believe that a lot of his resentment stems from that.  You could say that Brian should not lead Mike on like that, but Brian's Brian.  He operates on a wavelength that no one else does. 

As for Al "screwing" his bandmates? I think it's outrageous that Mike, the least important BB, IMO acts like he is absolutely indispensible. Your (and other's I'm finding out) mileage varies.

I believe it is true that Mike didn't specify any amount of credit on any of the songs he proved in court he deserved credit for and he did not ask for but a fraction of the worth of the royalities he had been screwed out of.  Your imagination seems to know that there might not have been more songs Mike deserved credit for that he didn't get and know even more about what he did deserve than those who saw the evidence.

I guess I don't get your imagination since it is what is imagining this and that about Mike.  Brian tells Mike he wants to work with him, not something that is imagined. "Brian's Brian", you and Mike agree on that.

I guess my mileage does vary from yours on Mike's importance, as does yours seem to vary, again, from those who heard the evidence on Al's screwing of his bandmates.

Maybe I won't ever get "it".

[Jim McShane]

It's not that Brian has been composing this exciting new music that requires a sophiticated lyricist or something, although I wish he was.

I'm not so sure about that. After all, where did Brian go to get lyrics for WIRWFC and Christmasey? I would say Bernie Taupin and Jimmy Webb are very sophisicated lyricists, I doubt they'd have been willing to contribute lyrics to crappy music.

Maybe its just me, but I can't picture ML as lyricist for those songs, especially WIRWFC. Maybe for something like Desert Drive though, maybe...

[Emdeeh]

Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

[MBE]

. Check out the end of Stebbins BBC documentary if you think Brian is in such a great envirement now.

I missed that one. Can you elaborate?

Well at the end Brian makes some truly nasty comments about Mike. Then is asked if he thinks they will work together again and Brian says no then looks off camera at someone (I have my guesses on who) and says something like "We don't want to do we?

[Eric Aniversario]

Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

I agree.  Al is a very kind and honest man, who, yes, has made mistakes in the past.  He does not deserve the shaft he's been given since 1998.  Cam, you get upset when people demonize Mike Love in any way...and I do agree that sometimes people go a little far when people insult Mike.  But don't you think that your view of Al may be just a little skewed?  I think that the degree to which you demonize Al far surpasses the degree to which most people demonize Mike.  

It seems that any post you make regarding Mike, Brian or Al comes out to about this:

Mike=Unfairly attacked, heavily important part of the Beach Boys legacy, who has made few, if any mistakes

Al=Greedy, cold-hearted demon-man who is out to get everybody

Brian=Wishy-washy buffoon who should wise up and go ahead and collaborate with Mike already

[endofposts]

I found the interview that Brian did a few weeks before debuting Smile at RFH in 2004.  Here's a few paragraphs pertaining to his relationship with Mike and the Beach Boys:

He was turned on to meditation in 1967 by Mike Love - the man who, as a result of the lawsuit he won in 1998, now owns the sole right to the Beach Boys name. Asked if he thinks this is crazy, Wilson answers brightly. "No. I'm proud of Mike. He's licensed the Beach Boys name, so he's the Beach Boys - and Al Jardine is Al Jardine and I'm Brian Wilson."

Do they stay in touch? "No, we don't talk any more. Since Carl died, the whole thing fell apart. We don't call each other up at all." But moments later he says: "I tried to call Mike last night but his phone was disconnected. I wanted to break the ice and see how he feels about music and life and everything, but I couldn't get hold of him."

Was he interested in what Love might think about Smile? "Yes." Does he ever play any of his old Beach Boys records? "No. I don't wallow in the mire." And if he should accidentally hear one on the radio or TV? "Each one brings back a different kind of memory. Sometimes sadness, but most of the time it brings back a good feeling - sunshine and ocean. The Beach Boys were all about sunshine and ocean."

The link to the complete interview is here, which also has comments by Melinda:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,12102,1128599,00.html

[theCOD]

Mike=Unfairly attacked, heavily important part of the Beach Boys legacy, who has made few, if any mistakes

Al=Greedy, cold-hearted demon-man who is out to get everybody

Brian=Wishy-washy buffoon who should wise up and go ahead and collaborate with Mike already

Cam IS Mike Love.  Think about it.

[HeyJude]

Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

I agree.  Al is a very kind and honest man, who, yes, has made mistakes in the past.  He does not deserve the shaft he's been given since 1998.  Cam, you get upset when people demonize Mike Love in any way...and I do agree that sometimes people go a little far when people insult Mike.  But don't you think that your view of Al may be just a little skewed?  I think that the degree to which you demonize Al far surpasses the degree to which most people demonize Mike.  

It seems that any post you make regarding Mike, Brian or Al comes out to about this:

Mike=Unfairly attacked, heavily important part of the Beach Boys legacy, who has made few, if any mistakes

Al=Greedy, cold-hearted demon-man who is out to get everybody

Brian=Wishy-washy buffoon who should wise up and go ahead and collaborate with Mike already

Well said, Eric, and thanks for taking the time to make this point. I haven't seen much of it, but I have seen 2 or 3 fans in my lifetime who believe that Al is really the root of all evil in all of the BB fuss of the last 8 years or so. This position seems to stem from the fact that Al was not particularly succesful in either defending himself against recent lawsuits or his own lawsuits. (Frankly, I don't even know where all of the lawsuits stand, as some of them had nothing to do with the naming issue but had to do with Al being paid back for a settlement relating to Brian's "autobiography", etc.). Now, we can debate the merits both legally and morally of the whole BB trademark/naming issue (which I no longer care to do since I went through numerous go-arounds with Cam on the PSML regarding this topic several years ago; it started out interesting and thought-provoking and ended in circular arguments going nowhere), but even those who don't feel Al was doing himself or others any favors by using the "BBFF" name or going through the various lawsuits usually don't try to posit that Al did it all out of vindictiveness and some evil plan to go after the rest of the group. Further, I find it particularly offensive and hyperbolic to use such obviously inflammatory statements as Al going after "heirs" as if Al is not only being vindictive, but he's also doing a devil dance on the grave of Carl or something.

Brian, David Marks, and the "heirs" of Carl and Dennis all joined Al at the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony last year. Gee, who was it that didn't show up to that event? All of these supposed actions that Al took against the rest of the group clearly would have impacted Brian and the heirs as much as Mike, yet who was the one who didn't show up at that event? It makes me think that Brian and the "heirs" feel no such "hatchets." Mike is the only one who has referenced "hatchets", and even he never made any direct reference to Al vis-a-vis the "hatchets." Geez, even Mike didn't make such hyperbolic statements about Al. Mike has said that Al is suing, and that he has "issues" with Al, etc. But I've never even seen Mike come out and claim that Al is hatcheting the entire group and their heirs.

As I mentioned, I could argue on and on about legal and moral merits of the issues that Cam is clearly referencing regarding Al. But that went nowhere before, and I don't know if I can find all of my posts from the PSML from several years ago since copying and pasting them would be the same thing as posting anew, because the arguments are all the same. But I'm sorry, the whole Al/hatchet thing is just low. If Cam is using this terminology in not such a heavy way, and for some reason just means to use "putting a hatchet in the back" of somebody as a way of conveying that that person is doing something that does not benefit and/or disagrees with another person's point of view, then I'm sorry to say that there are enough hatchets in every band member's back from every other band member to go around. Gimme a break.

[Cam Mott]

Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

Margaret, I'm sure Al is a decent sort.  He may have more to say on the issue but in the court document this does not add up to Al's finest hour imo. My understanding is BRI bent over backwards, even offering sweetened terms, to give Al the equal rights he deserved.  Someone else introduced the concept of hatchets but my point is Al went against his bandmates and their heirs and he lost, several times, I'm glad he is wanting to get past it now but I think he can reasonably expect the others to take a little more time.  I hope they all do get past it and I hope they all start working together again.

[Rocker]

. Check out the end of Stebbins BBC documentary if you think Brian is in such a great envirement now.

I missed that one. Can you elaborate?

Well at the end Brian makes some truly nasty comments about Mike. Then is asked if he thinks they will work together again and Brian says no then looks off camera at someone (I have my guesses on who) and says something like "We don't want to do we?

Well, in fact he asked "What do you think?" and then the documentaion was over.


BTW here is a new interview with Mike where he says that he and Al still have their problems:

http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/artsLifestyle/view.bg?articleid=551357

I don't like that Mike claims to have written "Surfin USA". He did this in the BBC-documentary too, but I guess he would've sued for that in the early 90s, too, so what's the problem with him?

[donald]

Mike is a big butthole.

[Aegir]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

[matt-zeus]

Yeah, Chuck Berry thinks he wrote it (well he sort of did), I wouldn't argue with him

[Rocker]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Well, on the BBC-docu he said he made up the words.... When I said he claimes to have written the song, I wasn't talking 'bout music, even Mike wouldn't go that far.

[HeyJude]

Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

Margaret, I'm sure Al is a decent sort.  He may have more to say on the issue but in the court document this does not add up to Al's finest hour imo. My understanding is BRI bent over backwards, even offering sweetened terms, to give Al the equal rights he deserved.  Someone else introduced the concept of hatchets but my point is Al went against his bandmates and their heirs and he lost, several times, I'm glad he is wanting to get past it now but I think he can reasonably expect the others to take a little more time.  I hope they all do get past it and I hope they all start working together again.

I think the main problem with what you've been saying is, first, you continued the use of the term "hatchets" and introduced the usage in relation to Al, a linkage between the term and Al that nobody else, not even Mike Love, had made.

Second, you are using instances of court rulings not agreeing with Al's actions and/or contentions and turning that into some grand evil scheme of Al's to screw the rest of the band and their heirs. It was a disagreement as to what Al could or could not do with the BB name, not a grand scheme to screw the entire corporation, of which Al is a part. As I mentioned before, I'm not going to go over all the old arguments again, but I will say that it is certainly NOT evident from the court cases that Al was trying to screw the band. In fact, it is clear to me that Al *believed* what he was doing was right/allowed/okay, etc. He may have been wrong in many of those instances, but your portrayal of Al's intentions (not his actions, but his intentions in taking those actions) is not grounded in anything other than your own interpretation of the evidence at hand, and, I believe, a clear pro-Mike slant that has yet to allow you to point any criticism towards anybody but Al in relation to the band problems of the last 8-plus years).

Third, you are using this instance of some (not neccesarily all, considering one voter may have abstained in some votes) of the other band members and heirs not  agreeing with Al's contentions as some sort of huge grudge that they all have a right to hold against Al, as if this is the only legal action ever taken by one member against any other, as if Al spoiled the whole thing and otherwise they all get along. Nice try trying to pin all of the present ills of the band on Al, as if Brian and Mike are buddies but both have a reason to hold a long-term grudge against Al and nobody else, but nobody's buying it.

[Pretty Funky]

For the Beach Boy 101er's like myself, We have read that Al was getting sick of the Jukebox tours as they had become and wanted to fire Mike and do a, lets call it "specialty or upmarket" concert set.
Now my question is, was this just a throw-away line from Al within the group and management, maybe taken out of context by Mike or are we talking a full no holds bared, blood on the table fight?
As Carl was in no condition to contribute in this we must be talking Al, Mike, Bruce and I guess Brian or his handlers. Just who were the participants? Did BRI as a company just take the highest bidder regardless?

[Cam Mott]

I think the main problem with what you've been saying is, first, you continued the use of the term "hatchets" and introduced the usage in relation to Al, a linkage between the term and Al that nobody else, not even Mike Love, had made.

And.....?

Second, you are using instances of court rulings not agreeing with Al's actions and/or contentions and turning that into some grand evil scheme of Al's to screw the rest of the band and their heirs. It was a disagreement as to what Al could or could not do with the BB name, not a grand scheme to screw the entire corporation, of which Al is a part. As I mentioned before, I'm not going to go over all the old arguments again, but I will say that it is certainly NOT evident from the court cases that Al was trying to screw the band. In fact, it is clear to me that Al *believed* what he was doing was right/allowed/okay, etc. He may have been wrong in many of those instances, but your portrayal of Al's intentions (not his actions, but his intentions in taking those actions) is not grounded in anything other than your own interpretation of the evidence at hand, and, I believe, a clear pro-Mike slant that has yet to allow you to point any criticism towards anybody but Al in relation to the band problems of the last 8-plus years).

I think we should read the docu again. Al took unilateral action, writing his own contract, altering the fees in his favor, ignoring restrictions to his advantage and misappropriating the trademark to his advantage [all rules and agreements he had previously helped define and agreed to] and his bandmates and their heirs disadvantage, ignoring warnings and actions from his bandmates and their heirs in BRI.  Perhaps unintentionally as per your slant. 

Third, you are using this instance of some (not neccesarily all, considering one voter may have abstained in some votes) of the other band members and heirs not  agreeing with Al's contentions as some sort of huge grudge that they all have a right to hold against Al, as if this is the only legal action ever taken by one member against any other, as if Al spoiled the whole thing and otherwise they all get along. Nice try trying to pin all of the present ills of the band on Al, as if Brian and Mike are buddies but both have a reason to hold a long-term grudge against Al and nobody else, but nobody's buying it.

Brian, Mike and Carl's heirs were all named defendants in Al's suit, was that in gratitude to the one supposed supporter he had among them?

I don't remember  alluding to any of the last half you are pinning on me.....with a hatchet.

[Aegir]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Well, on the BBC-docu he said he made up the words.... When I said he claimes to have written the song, I wasn't talking 'bout music, even Mike wouldn't go that far.

Oh, well I was just talking about the article; I'm pretty sure that first quote is from something lawsuit-related press release from months ago with songs in parentheses that were put there by the reporter.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Cam - I think you are mixing apples and oranges.  i do believe Al's lawsuit concerned  his performing as Beach Boys Family and Friends/using the Beach Boys name in his billing after he had left the Beach Boys.  His main claim, in the lawsuit, was to be able to bill himself as a Beach Boy and I believe he somewhat prevailed in the courts, in the end, forcing a settlement with BRI.

What he charged to perform as BBF&F, what was his percentage to keep vs. pay to BRI (as he was not billing himself as the "Beach Boys,") the difference between both acts, yada, yada is a mess of legal manure that woulld be impossible to pin on one party or another as right or wrong.  For example, should he have kept more of the gate of the BBF&F shows? i think so as the Beach Boys entity/name draws much bigger crowds, higher priced tickets, bigger venues etc then al has ever done on his own.  I imagine Al's arguement was that 100% of very little is very little (BBF&F) while 10% of a lot is still a lot (Beach Boys).

i believe the animosity between Al and Mike is a result of their initial beef when Al left. It reached the point of no return as they traded lawsuits over the use of the Beach Boys name.  As I recall, they are both guilty of  saying some downright nasty things about each other.

[HeyJude]

I had a post all typed out and lost it somehow, so forgive me if this post is even less enthusiastic than usual.

SurfRider, you make some valid points; probably some of the same points I made in debating the topic a few years ago. I just can't bring myself to dredge up the whole debate again, but a good deal of Cam's claims about Al make an assumption that Al was trying to have a license but break the terms of it, etc., when in fact one of the arguments that was made was that he didn't need a license. I believe Al attempted to use all sorts of case law involving other ex-band members of other bands using variations on the old name, and I think something to do with a Playboy model wanting to refer to herself as a "Playboy Playmate" outside of Playboy functions or some such thing when she had no rights to the name "Playboy" as it pertains to the magazine. One can wade through the legal mess and debate it, as I did a few years ago. So even in that forum, it's not neccesarily as clear cut. But, at this point I'm not even arguing the legalities. Frankly, I don't even know where the various cases stand. I know that Al won something in some sort of case at least temporarily, and/or got some sort of settlement. I think he can bill himself as a "Beach Boy" in some form now, although not as "BBFF" or anything of that nature.

I simply think it's ridiculous bordering on offensive (not to mention insulting to the knowledge that other BB fans/students have of the group's history) to portray Al Jardine as putting a hatchet into the back of other band members and heirs because of that legal mess. Cam's arguments all hinge on readings of how licenses were laid out, etc., when it's clear that the whole mess was much more complicated. It's not as if the only thing Al ever argued was that he had a license for life to use the name, end of story. There were a bunch of other arguments made as well, such as those I mentioned above.  Some or all of Al's contentions and beliefs may well have been wrong, but Cam is going WAY beyond simply stating that Al's arguments/contentions, etc. were found to be wrong. Cam's "hatchet" comments seem to suggest, at least to me, that Al willfully did the others wrong and did it maliciously, greedily, etc. Cam's comments also paint a picture where all the other band members and heirs have a right to hold a grudge against Al, yet Cam doesn't mention the 100 billion other grudges every band member has due to other lawsuits and numerous other band issues over the years. I'd like to see all of the BB's and heirs polled about the grudges and issues they hold against each other. I highly doubt the Al debacle of the last 8 years or so would rate the highest on that list.

[MBE]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Actually he does in the BBC doc.